Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.12 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
In the landmark judgment of
Sajjan Kumar and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on
20th September 2010, judgments of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Anr. reported as (1979) 3 SCC IV and Dilawar Balu Kurane
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2002) 2 SCC 135 in reference to
framing of charge were discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it
was observed as under:
Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996
In Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and
another (1996) 9 SCC 766 the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with
what the Courts should take into consideration while framing charge. If
two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge
the accused. Valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a
trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to
pronounce the conclusion on a future date. I am certain that the trial would
only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time. I, therefore, find it a
fit case to turncate the proceedings at this stage."